No Date Denver Washington Quarter Mint Error - Capped Die Struck On Cent Planchet - Help!

Thanks Mike! That should be enough for me to be willing to crack it out and take some additional photos tonight showing the shape of things better.

This is my favorite thread of the past couple weeks!

Wow, fantastic coin! It does look like a type B reverse, but I wonder how that reverse die got to the Denver mint? Or maybe the strike onto a cent planchet caused some distortion that is mimicking a type B reverse.

This one was out of my league all along, but as always, I really enjoy seeing what you bring to the table, Tbats! You know how to pick some great coins!

Absolutely - his expertise is much appreciated.

Way cool error, thanks for sharing the specs and photos once freed from that slab.

Tropicalbats send the coin to PCGS and also had Jon Sullivan look at it. They both declared it a counterfeit. I was then asked to look at the coin. I also concluded that it was counterfeit, although a very sophisticated one. This is a cupped broadstrike with a first-strike brockage of the reverse design on the obverse face. It is, in other words, the "saucer" of a cup-and-saucer mated pair. Here are the sticking points:

1. As others have observed, the reverse features the Type B subtype (RDV-002). James Wiles says this subtype isn't known from Denver.
2. The reverse lettering and central design are "soft". That should be associated with signs of die wear. But the field is completely and jarringly smooth. I've seen this appearance on known counterfeits from this time period (1964 and thereabouts).
3. The die-struck D-mintmark appears to occupy a slightly different position relative to the incuse D-mintmark. The former is more centered and farther from the crossed olive branches. The two mintmark positions should be identical.
4. As mentioned earlier, the coin cups down toward the reverse (anvil) die. While cupping in this direction is sometimes seen on the "saucer" portion of a cup-and-saucer mated pair, the degree of downward inflection is unusual.
5. The coin was struck on a blank, rather than a planchet. While most off-metal errors are struck on blanks, in this case I suspect the blank didn't come from the Mint. I further suspect that its composition will prove to be 100% copper.

The totality of the evidence strongly points toward a counterfeit.

I think it is an RDV-008 which is RARE in D and fund only in 1969-D, 1970-D, 1971-D and 1972-D. Later when I come back I will post here all the main markers for RDV-008. This anvil was in fact design for the proof coins of that's years, and for a reason of others some remained in Denver and was use for theirs strike. In 20 years I find only one in 1969-D and at this date I do not know who has all's in theirs collection. Damage it is not list yet on the rare coins.

The Denver RVD-002 till this date no one find one. I do not day is not possible, but I doubt that anvils from Phil fly to Denver.

If it is Silver is RDV-002 and if it is Cooper it is RDV-008